Well think of it this way, the BBC is in fact a corporation believe it or not, however they're forever championing new talent and a rich diversity of new sound in a big way whilst investing heavily in promoting free events too along side having a presence at the paid for events by other promoters and organisers.

Then you have other well established big name DJ's who have started and own some very cool fringe record labels with lesser mainstream sounds away from their main record labels that most people would readily associate their names with. It's not like these DJ's have stopped delivering the quality in their work under their more recognisable DJ guises. Nor would most people know that they also put out a whole bunch of other productions of different experimental leanings under different aliases too.

Guess who started and owns sci-tec? Answers on a postcard (...or in this day and age in an email maybe)


 
You've also got the clearly obvious examples of emfire and bedrock still staying true to their core and still delivering solid quality as far as sound and actual new talent goes.

So the idea that big name DJ's should be excluded from the top 40? Not a good one. I think what clued up people worry about more and where they should draw the line of distinction are the crazy big name DJ who managed to push Trance into what we know as the commercial mainstream of many pop charts the world over to then pack out their DJ gigs with living the rock'n'roll dream rock style numbers as far as people turnout at gigs is concerned. That's not to say I have anything against Trance music as even I will admit I like some of it despite generally choosing not to play it in any major way. Of course there are a few exceptions. Why? OK take for example the Chemical Bothers...

Generally the Chemical Brothers are looked upon as being producers before DJ's despite the fact that they do in fact DJ. When they do their shows they obviously mainly play their own productions, that's a granted and they also usually pack their venues whether they billed as doing a show or DJing. Whatever the case they have taken their particular brand of sound to the masses and delivered in many pop charts the world over whether in show or DJ form of close to the same sort of scale as the top trance DJ's had managed to pull off. However the key difference is the Chemical Brothers have credibility among mainstream consumers and as well as the more key none mainstream fringe consumers in a singular entity/recognisable name/front.

This is where it gets muddled, when the Chemical Brothers put on a show (and boy do they really do go town on it when they do) they have a set list and don't really use any type of turntables. However it is fact still done live via samplers, filter racks, effects modules, trigger pads, midi controllers and a whole bunch of other stuff. The set is also pretty structured and will generally take a particular order. The Chemical Brothers have in fact been given grief in the past for not using turntables to also be accused of being nothing more then button pressers and pot/knob twiddlers.

Most DJ's also have a similarly structured set with little room for deviation through certain sequence paths. The only differences is they're mainly playing other peoples music with little variation or difference in sound other than the what the mix combinations produce if you want to look at in the most clear cut way beyond all the justifications that were used for ripping into the likes of the Chemical Brothers at the time to begin with.

Now imagine you could go anywhere you wanted and turn on the edge of a penny as far as sound combination or productions were concerned whether DJing or production performing live. Even combine the two disciplines, or even make DJing even more dynamic and optionally far less structured and far less pre-defined via such means. It would in fact be far less limiting then using turntables and allow you to do much more creatively and dynamicly in a live setting if done properly. As far as mixing in a progressive set style with turntables are concerned I'd personally have nothing to prove, since I've already paid my dues on that front as far as honing my turntablism skills on Technics for progressive set mixing goes. But then using midi triggers, midi controllers and a mixer alone doesn't look as impressive as using turntables despite actually involving much more as far as ability to be more dynamic with vastly less pre-defined performance potential goes, which does in fact involve a lot more then using a pair of CDJ's. Using CDJ's for the main part does essentially still involves mere button pressing and pot twiddling when using CDJ's to mix! But most people don't see that, they just need to see you doing record stabs regularly and leaning into one earcup despite the fact that most CDJ users just hit the sync button anyway when using a DVS with them, or they'll hsvr all the trigger and cue point all pre-sorted with matched BPM groupings. Beat alignments and beat matching is nowhere near as involved using CDJ's as it is with using vinyl on vinyl turntables or a DVS on vinyl turntables in complete manual mode. Using CDJ's is in fact purely button pressing and pot twiddling for the main part. 

I reckon alot of people might want to reconsider their arguments and what DJing is actually about. Only then can you really think about how DJing should evolve as a performance art.